when i became mayor of the city of stanford facility. if you talk about communities, the single largest investment that almost every community across the country has is its school is the physical infrastructure. it's the most expensive building. has a lot of technology and a lot of stuff in the building. if you scratch the surface, as i did when i was new mayor of stanford. i realized the guy who was overseeing the paint then and construction of buildings had a doctorate in councilling. and point of fact there was not a single architect, there was not single engineer who worked for the system at that time. ..

i remember you when you were mayor when we visited stanford and my question really relates to their relationship in piggybacks on your rick/question the relationship of schools and general-purpose government. in stanford you are one of them a oral pioneers in pushing the kinds of relationships that you just discussed. my question relates to this philosophy particularly in light of the profound demographic changes. have you been able to take the kinds of initiatives at the state level bringing in the

department of social services and juvenile justice etc. and breaking down the traditional isolation of schools from general purpose government? >> yes and no. we made some progress but not enough. some of that affect structural change and i go back to early childhood education. we created an office of the early childhood. we took operations out of four different departments and put them in one office to be housed within the department of education but now we have one operation concentrating on early childhood education is supposed to public health and child welfare and that sort of thing. we have it all together and i think that's going to allow us to bring a more efficient delivery system on board for early childhood education. but there is this kind of dynamic ,-com,-com ma and it's not a good dynamic between general government and education one will pick on the other and

there will be weaknesses of the other that have an sauna regular basis. trying to get people working together hand-in-hand is difficult to do and i'm finding it more difficult to see it happen across districts and community lines than i would have thought. having said that we are making progress nonetheless. part of it is just i think what is really going on and what will push a lot of this is that we are very dependent on property taxes so beyond the education cost-sharing dollars that the state distributes everything else is basically tied to local property taxes. those bases aren't growing anymore so p. shuler -- people are forced to work together and i think the folks that will leave this discussion are actually in the communities right now looking at how do you continue to support education when your list is not growing.

it will drive innovation. >> as far as funding for education over say the next five years doesn't look like it's going to be flat or will it be down or will it be a? >> i think it's a little early to tell. this is the slowest recovery from a recession in the post world war ii era and i am visiting you here in washington but the folks in washington seem to put the brakes on the economy every six months or so. or even more often than not. they are not helping and with first act to growth in the economy. i think that americans will put more money into education and the economy is doing better or when they confront the fact that the funding education is actually hurting them and their state, so i think there is a bigger picture and bigger pressures out there at play on this and then of course you also

have legal requirements and constitutional requirements within states. we are sadly one of the states that under our con -- constitution require a test for every child. in connecticut we have shaffer's own mail and o'neal being a former governing -- governor that allows a super education district overseeing about 41% of the kids in the greater hartford school district and surrounding districts putting them in different schools that they would otherwise be attending. that is a constitutional answer to an education problem. >> yes, sir. >> thank you governor. i'm sorry. i am very stern a senior adviser

to the educational foundation. my question. you opine that we know what works yet there seems to be a growing consensus throughout the country including the president that the weakest link in our educational system is our secondary schools. in fact the president announced a 100 billion-dollar grant program to reinvent the american high school. many people believe that the faculty model school, 85 cent of the children will no longer be the needs of today's young oak. are you trying to reinvent the high school in connecticut? >> i would say yes. we have a number of initiatives around doing that including allowing high school students to take courses in college at colleges. in one case we are actually doing it in a number of cases, co-locating schools on college campuses or in fighting college

campuses to offer courses in the school. i think all of that is important. i think, but i'm going to respond to what you said, i think we fail most of our kids that we fail an education in the early years. we just pay a bigger price in the later years. and so we all know a child who is not reading at or near level in third grade the chances for that child to be successful or greatly diminished in the rest of their formal education process through middle school and through high school. we have got to do a better job there. i think we have to think about education differently particularly at the high school level. we have a lot of kids that are under challenged and we have a lot of kids who are over challenged because they didn't get the initial exposures that they needed to get. i think willing in, building into schools the ability to respond to those two things are

going to be important for success in the future and i think looking at college coursework, driving higher numbers of folks who take advanced placement courses is going to be very important in that you speak governor in the post-secondary point you just alluded to, obviously college completion rates have garnered a lot of attention of late. is that something you have had the chance to tackle in connecticut? >> we have been working on it. we have raised tuition is a lot of states have been the downturn so there's less money coming in the door. we are required additional contribution by the student or the parent read again i go back to washington and the idea that the student loan program and the united states is designed to make money, $48 billion a year doesn't make a whole lot of sense at the time at the same time we are talking about how much debt students are carrying. the longer the --

the larger the interest rate the longer you will carry that debt. it's hard to justify that the khobar somehow is justified that spare their particular initiatives with regard to community colleges? >> one of the things we live with and by is tuition goes up so much support for those who can't pay the full boat and a high percentage of our students, in-state students are getting some degree of aid and making sure that people that for whatever education they are paying from the state institution is a real value is extremely important to me and making sure that we are offering the right course work that's going to allow young person with little skills to a slightly older person with real skills is very important. i tell the story about during a road trip getting ready for a jobs bill that i wanted to get past known as nontech which is

the community college in connecticut that has to operate in a high value-added manufacturing education program for 12 years and had 98 to 100% placement rates for 10 of those years. they had 12 trinity colleges and that program was in a single additional community college. it makes no sense in a state that is number two per-capita in aerospace, -- number two per-capita in submarine development and construction. in fact almost all of our is high-value added as opposed to low value-added that we were reshaping our schools be responsible for producing the human capital that we need to be successful. >> did you find out why? >> yes, it was outside people's educational walks and so we now have that in three additional

community colleges. that bottle is being used to kind of rethink and breathe told our technical high schools which the state runs. yeah they are changing. >> yes. >> thank you governor. with i really appreciate it. one comment, want to thank you for all the safety measures and issues you have been supporting and taking a statewide leadership on and nationally. at rick alluded to some -- duncan and the simon's piece. is the government especially the k-12 considering the stalemate of the sca to become irrelevant for the work you're doing or is there a role the federal government can do that complements the work that the states are plying? >> i go back to the comment about a 100 million-dollar auto grant program. even if you don't get one of those grants doing the work to

put yourself in a position to compete is a learning experience and is driving thought change in school district after school district. that enters that application process. i think duncan is very relevant in driving the conversation. schools are run on -- the state runs a few schools, technical schools. we fund some others but we really run on a local level but who's going to lead the discussion? who is going to hold a mirror up to people space and say hey are you really as successful as you think you are and can you refer to yourself as successful when you have failed to properly educate 40% of the children's children? somebody has to ask a question. i have a long political career. i was not a supporter of "no child left behind" as it was originally drafted or its

inherent weaknesses but i have to give bush and kennedy some credit. they finally finally held up the mirror and said look, look at these results. how can you get up every day and continue to have that delay when you are supplying most important governmental service. so i don't think washington is irrelevant except when it makes itself irrelevant and i think washington can help lead discussions. this is one of the few areas where i think we have had a very positive impact lately. >> hi. jan alexander. governor when you're working on on the 2012 legislation you went out across the state of connecticut and really took and really took it on the chin time and time again and had to work with frankly reluctant legislature in 2012 and then

again in 2013. can you talk a little bit about using your office to pull not just the legislature but the constituents along to final legislation? >> i had to do that a couple of times on different initiatives. the largest per-capita deficit representing 17% of total revenue and therefore i had to go in a different direction. when a lot of states were saying we have to cut, realizing that our gap was too big to cut her way out of it and too big to tax her way out of it and had to be a combination of two. someone had to explain what we are trying to do and when it came to education i did that as well. there were a lot of people mad at me and a lot of folks betting a lot of money to try to defeat and organized efforts even though they supported certain aspects of it. it was the total picture they didn't want to see and it might carve out a corner that they like but that was the total

picture. somebody has to have the discussion. someone has to have that discussion with the communities and someone has to demonstrate to members of the legislature that you want to work with him and get their input that we need to change directions. go back to hartford new haven ridge ford new london new britain failing to properly educate 40% of their kids. those are some the largest school districts. you can't succeed as a state when you are doing that. when you look at connecticut demographically as one of the old there's dates and a rapidly aging states you throw away 20 or son of kids in the school district. you are throwing away your opportunity. someone had to say that and i felt that was my job as governor and lieutenant governor was there by my side most of those times. someone had to get the job done and i was more than happy to do it. i had to do it a third time on gun safety post-sandy hook rye

felt the proposals were languishing in the legislature and i stepped forward and outlined what i thought was common sense gun safety legislation and i think the 12 or 13 of those across the state. i got yelled at a lot of gun enthusiast but somebody had to go out there and have the discussion. that is part of leadership and i have never shied away from that. >> when you're talking to your colleagues who are seeking the same kinds of legislative packages that you are able to successfully push in connecticut are there particular experiences on gun you are the education package that might be useful to folks in another context? >> i think there is, i think some things are harder to do as a democrat in some things are harder to do as a republican. education reform generally has been a harder thing to do with

the democratic legislature and that was the real test. i referenced earlier massachusetts really get into school reform far earlier than we did. it was a contest between the governors and legislators in that state. i had to bring everybody along. my predecessors had been fairly inactive on education reform efforts in the past so i had to fly in the face of what many would consider traditional constituencies for democratic officeholder which also slowly but surely we have to bring those folks on. you cannot do top down. it's not going to work. it has to be a combination of leadership, getting implementation going and staying at the year after year. a question with 12 in the tone

legislation passed in 13 when some tried to undo the funding for the package in the last legislative session and i didn't let that happen. i said if that happened i would feed a whatever budget was was attached a bad and we spent the summer working on a new budget and ultimately we got what we all needed and it's about leadership. it's about trying to do the right thing for the largest number of people without affecting other people's rights. that is true and school safety and that's true with gun safety. sandy hook was a gigantic wake-up call for the united states. not that there hadn't previously been shooting in schools. there had but we hadn't seen a mass casualty situation where 20 babies lost their lives and wonderful teachers and parent professionals and other professionals. is interesting, we have the state bureau.

nathan hale and prudence crandall are gross teachers. if you look at some of the finest and most courageous acts committed on december 14, it was the principal and educational professional who ran out trying to stop adam lanza from killing those children and other adults. teachers are good hard-working people that just need the support and we need to get everybody pulling in the same direction together. that is what i have tried to do. i have probably used the wrong language more than. i know why half. it's not because i don't appreciate what teachers do. i'm a guy who grew up with a severe learning disability as well as physical disabilities. i wouldn't be here today but for the intervention of educators, overcoming dyslexia as well as

gross motor control difficultdifficult ies. it's why i'm here today so i have this appreciation. i come from a family of teachers as well but when things are working, and a warrant for black kids and brown kids and poor kids in our school system, then you have to change directions. it's not about opportunities and it's not about if all the stars align for one kid out of 50 in the school and they do really well then you have done your job it's not about that. it's about holding ourselves to a higher standard where we measure ourselves by our successes as opposed to our desires. speak of in her. thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause]

i would like to wish all of you a good return to work after thanksgiving and look forward to seeing everyone soon.

[applause] >> i will try the experiment with a microphone. can everyone here? okay, how is this? great.

good morning everyone. it's a pleasure to be here with you today. i would like to thank yergin iser's for inviting me to come to this very beautiful place. what i would like to talk with you about this morning, as hank mentioned we will start with a very basic review of dna, what is dna and how does it work and why should you be interested in at? i will focus on an important intersection between dna and the law and that is in forensic genetics, forensic applications and i will illustrate some of the points with case studies in which dna has been used in forensic context. so our body is a marvelous collection of about 100 chilean cells and inside almost all of these cells is the nucleus of the cell here, we can find dna.

the dna is organized along chromosomes. we can can observe these under microscope and if we look very closely at these chromosomes, received this double helix structure, the classic structure of the dna molecule. along the dna are these cases, a, c, t and g's that compose jeans. we humans have 21,000 genes. each gene encodes an important component of our body, an important protein or enzyme. so we can think of the dna is sequenced as the body's instruction manual. it's the shop annual or the human body. i will show you a little bit of sequence here. you can't read this. this is about 3000 dna bases, a very tiny proportion of our

total dna sequence. in fact each of ourselves has about 3 billion dna base pairs. so what i'm showing you here is rough lee 1 million of the human genome and the genome is our entire dna a sequence. if i were to show you a picture like this one every second you would take me about 12 days to show you the entire human genome. that seem out of information that we are looking at when we ask or try to sequence the whole human genome. but that is one of our major goals today in genetics is to provide whole sequences of humans and other animals as well that sequence allows us to understand more about our pre-dissertation to disease like heart disease shown here with about 90% accuracy. if i had 50 in a sequence i can predict your eye color so we have for example a saliva or let sample from a crime scene we can predict certain physical traits with some degree of accuracy

from the dna sequence. for a long time the barrier to obtaining the sequences was cost. this slide shows you the cost of the first human genome sequenced in 2003. the cost of the human genome project altogether was about $3 billion. that's a lot of money but if you think of what we spend on health care every day in this country, that's about 10 hours of health care spending. it helps put it in perspective. a few years later in 2007 the second genome was sequenced still a cost of $100 million. when we started sequencing human genomes in 2009 the cost to come down to $25,000 because of technological developments. as the end of last year was down to three, maybe $4000 to sequence the 3 billion base genome. that represents a million fold decline in price in less than a decade and i don't think there is any other technology that can

boast that kind of the declining cost and so little time. now for about the cost of an mri we can get your entire dna sequence and unlike an mri results are sequence won't change. so this gives us a tremendous amount of information about each and every human sequence and now tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are being sequenced mostly by medical studies. i will mention the first human family i'm happy to say the first human family to be completely sequences the family from utah. that happens to be my wife and children so for me we have an exercise in personal genomics that turned out to be very fulfilling. occasionally in our dna sequence there is a seikh one's shown on this slide the double he be -- helix, the double bass is occurring in pairs.

occasionally an alteration occurs and this is what we call a mutation. it turns out something we learn from sequencing that we were able to estimate the rate of mutation and how often does it actually occurred? each time we reproduce we transmit about 30 new mutations to our offspring. most of these are in the 99% of dna that is noncoated coded which mean it doesn't actually make proteins, structural components in the body but occasionally these mutations do affect the genes so that they can actually cause disease. but this is a great quote from lewis thomas who said the capacity to lend her slightly, that is to mutate is the real marvel at dna. without the special attribute we would still be an aerobic bacteria and there would be no music. that is a lovely quote because it tells us that these mutations the introduction of genetic

variation allows us to adapt to changing environment and what gives us the wonderful physical diversity we see in a roomful of people like this. although mutations can cause disease they also allow us to adapt and we should be thankful for them. the natural question that comes up in this context is how much do we differ? at these mutations are happening every time we produce how much variation is there among humans? if we look at identical twins these are nature's clones. identical twins differ at essentially zero dna aces. it's not quite true but it's close enough. they are identical at the dna level. if we look at unrelated humans do i have any guesses as to how much an unrelated pair of humans differs at the dna level black swan and what? well it's not very much. one and 1000. at the dna level this most fundamental unit of our biology,

we are 99.9% identical. there's an important message right there. if we compare ourselves to our nearest biological relative to champ we are 99% identical to the gym. this is for dna sequences that we can line up and compare. we compare ourselves to the mouse we differ at about a sixth to a third of our genes to a mouse and as you would expect we are more different from mice and compared to broccoli we are mostly different from broccoli at the dna level. [laughter] but if you think about it we have 3 billion dna aces even if we are 99.9% identical. that means that there are 3 million differences on average between each pair of humans. now that's important because that provides the basis for forensic identification. each of us is genetically unique unless we are an identical twin.

there are roughly three to 4 million differences between individuals. that means there are at least two to the 3 millionth power of possible combinations of these differences. in other words assuring that all of us are genetically unique. the implication is if enough genetic variation is tested each of us could be unique and identified and we don't need to look at every difference. we just need to look a subset of those differences. dna as you probably know is found in nearly all cells of the body like blood, seaman, hair and even quite often in fingerprints. we can actually get sufficient dna for analysis. that means dna from an evidentiary sample can be compared with dna from a suspect to implicate or exonerate that person. that is what i will be talking about now for the next several minutes.

now we have celebrated examples of dna identification. when saddam hussein or the man they thought was saddam hussein was first capture one of the questions was, was this really saddam or was it at the quite? dna at an extracted from his two sons earlier that year and a dna profile was created from the suspected son compared to his two sons and there was a match between the sons and saddam for a number of dna locations. helping to prove that this was in fact saddam hussein. just last month this article was published where the last victim of the boston strangler, dna was identified on that victim who could be traced through a family member to albert to sell both the man accused of being the boston strangler but who was killed in prison before he was tried on those charges. and of course we have this famous example of the world's

most famous navy blue dress. the one on which a dna sample turned to a he said she said case into a presidential impeachment. so dna evidence has served very important roles in a number of high-profile cases and every day as well and i will talk as well about that. what are we actually looking at when we try to identify people with their dna? we use something called a short and to repeat and i am illustrating that here. here is part of the sequence and what you see is part of this sequence, ca gaa is reported -- repeated over and over again. that is what it's called a tandem repeat and it's a short one. the important thing is that these repeats tend to ferry in their number from individual to individual so on the copy of chromosome five from my mother i

might have five free peace in the copy i got from my father and might have to repeats. if we look at hank's dna we might see that he had six copies on his paternal chromosome and four copies on this but paternal chromosomes so if you compare our dna you would tell them apart based on a number of these repeats at a specific location in the genome. and here are specific locations. these are the 13 codas loci the combined dna index is. these are the core short tandem repeats that are typically used in forensic applications. these are different chromosomes that helps to ensure they are independent of each other and that's an important property and we will talk about that in a minute. suppose we want to look at a couple of these. we can label them with glue and it rained label here and then what we have to do is make lots of copies of just that little piece of the chromosome that has

that repeat in it. we use it and he called pcr to do this so this is their xerox machine for dna. there's a vcr machine in my lap so what we do is take dna from an individual and loaded into the pcr machine and what comes out our dna fragments, just the ones of interest that continue to repeat. we examine and importantly from individual to individual the fragments are going to be different. they will be different and later because of this variation in their tandem repeat number. now to assess those sizes we use a process called electrophoresis dna products in this case rum pcr products from five individuals. we loathe them into a gel like this. we apply an electrical current to that gel and what happens is

the shorter smaller fragments that have fewer repeats tend to migrate to the joe mark rich ye. if they are smaller they can wiggle through the gel rapidly and if they are larger it takes them longer to get through the gel. we can start to see patterns. these are five different individuals with five different patterns. these are two different locations so these are two different st are's egg and you can see there's a lot of variation in individual to individual in the pattern of these as t.r. links. so let's take an example. here we have several dna samples that we are going to load into a gel and we have of victims dna an evidentiary sample in the three suspects. we are going to look at four different st are's. here are the possible outcomes. we might find suspect one left dna at the crime scene, subs -- suspect two or three. none of them left retrievable dna of the crime scene.

multiple suspects may have left dna or they did a good being complicit so we take our dna samples from the victim from the evidentiary sample and from the three sets x. and below them into our gel. those are the pcr products appear. we let them run and we look at patterns. does anyone see a match between the evidentiary sample and any of the suspects? shout out if you see which suspect matches the evidentiary sample. number one. that's exactly right. that is essentially what we do. we look for a pattern match between the evidentiary sample and any one of the suspects. now if you are looking at the crime lab report you would get something that looks like this and this is essentially what i just showed you turned on its side and each peak represents the position of one of those

fragments that i just showed you here are the smaller ones. here the larger ones in way of looking at 10 different st are's all at once and these are two samples, and evidentiary sample and the suspect sample and what we look at are the positions of these peaks. for example d16 here in d. 16 here would you say this is a match or not? this is an exclusion. these are in different locations. but me take you through a case study to illustrate how we use this. this was my first dna case back 20 years ago. michael decorso was accused in a homicide case and there was not dna. he was identified through a fingerprint on a piece of duct tape but he was also accused of the rape of 214-year-old girls in salt lake city. there were seaman samples from the rapes so the question was does the dna from that

evidentiary sample loss this -- match the sauce that this michael decorso? at the time the crime lab was using rflp's. these are not the kind of tandem repeat. what we have floated into this gel we have the victim's dna. we have decorso's dna the defendant and then we have three samples from the evidentiary sample floated that different concentrations. here's the highest concentrations of years the pattern in the defendant and here is the pattern in the evidentiary sample. is this a match or not? what do you think? i see some heads nodding. this was at the criteria established at the time a match. so is this sufficient to put decorso in jail to convict tim? probably not because we have to

ask the question how common with this profile be in the general population so we do some statistics that i won't talk about here and we estimate that the frequency of this row file in the population of european ancestry is about one in 50. so it's useful evidence but certainly not convincing enough to establish the identity of that evidentiary sample. so we look at another repeat system at another chromosome location. so here's our defendant. here's her evidentiary sample. is that a match are not? yeah, it's a match so again we ask how frequent is this profile in the general population and a reference population? it's about one in seven and now we have two pieces of information. one with the frequency of one and 50 and another with the frequency of one and 70. we can take those two pieces of

information multiply them together to say what's the likelihood that someone has both this profile as well as the other profile, one 50th and one 70th, one in 3500. now we have more information. we looked at a third system. there was again a match. the estimated frequency of that profile was one in 90. a fourth system again showed a match. in this case a suspect got the same length of tandem repeat from both of his parents. the frequency of that is about one in 10 so now we can take all four of those frequencies. we multiply them together and we say how often with someone in the general population at the first profile, the second, the third one and the fourth one and that turned out to be one in 3 million so at that time this was early on. the crime lab was using for the

systems but this gave us an overall probability and the general population having this profile in one in 3 million so that along with other evidence in the case with sufficient to convict decorso of the rapes of the teenage girls and convicted of the homicide and is now serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of a role. this just shows several pieces that i've been involved in over the years. a year after the decorso case this was the multiple rape case. jason higgins was accused of the rapes of women in ogden utah. by then the crime lab had five of these rflp systems tandem repeats in the reference population so we could look at five and at that point the probability that someone else had the same dna profile had gone to one in 409 with the

addition of an extra system. in 1999 we were using the pcr raised str's that i talked about. this was a rape case and in that case with nine of these systems putting all of that information together we had in me randa match probability of one in 250 billion. one of the questions the prosecutor asked after i presented that figure was how many people are there on the face of the earthquakes that gives the jury the idea that it's pretty unlike lee that any of us would have that same profile. the important thing here is this pattern we see as we incorporate more information and the probability tends to get smaller and smaller. this case is a little bit exceptional because in this case the defendant was a member of the butcher block creed populations of conservative assumptions have to be used in estimatinestimatin g the probability. as you can see we can get down to very small probabilities here in the case of the worlds most

famous navy blue dress the randa match probability was one in a trillion. dna evidence can be used not only to implicate the guilty. it can also be used to exonerate the innocent. this was the case i worked on a few ears ago where bruce alice goodman have been accused of the murder of a former girlfriend and spent 19 years in prison. his y chromosome dna was examined family and it was an exclusion. so as of this month 300 convicted americans have been exonerated by this kind of post-conviction dna testing and it's in trysting that on average they spent 13 half years in prison. 18 of them had received the death penalty and an half of these cases not only did dna evidence exclude them, it identified the actual perpetrator. now there are issues of course that come up in dna analysis.

dna is not magic. it can be altered. it can be inaccurate, so the kinds of questions that we have to address are the chain of custody ,-com,-com ma was their potential for dna contamination, where the data analyzed appropriately and determined accurately? the reference population where we get this frequency estimates is it sufficiently match for ancestral background? and i think this is another important question. is the expert witness really an expert in the area under consideration? so today dna evidence is used routinely in tens of thousands of criminal cases every year. the code is database now contains dna profiles of more than 12 million americans. most of them are convicted of vendors but also a rusty sin that database. the plan involved in missing

persons investigations and so forth. from the code is database, something that is very controversial trolling the database when you have an evidentiary sample to see if anybody in the david reese matches it has been used in more than 200,000 criminal investigations. so, the use of this kind of evidence has become increasingly common even in for example everyday property theft, burglary's. dna testing is sometimes used at a cost of around one to $2000 per case. so there are a number of interesting ongoing developments in this field. it is possible to estimate at least approximately the ancestry of the contributor of the dna sample. this is another controversial area but it has been used in a number of investigations. to make a dna sample you try to figure out the ethnic background of the person who contributed it

we can as i mentioned earlier are the certain physical features. there's a specific gene called mc one r. brett can look at three variants and i can detect about 90% of individuals with red hair sometimes referred to as the red hair gene. we can estimate age although approximate it can give us some idea of the age of the contributor of that blood sample. people are working on rapid detection, rapid dna typing it the crime scene. a lot of interesting developments, in developments that include both science as well as the legal profession helping to decide which of these developments are great and how how can we best use them? one of the things i really enjoy about talking to groups of

judges is that you have, this group has the collective wisdom to help figure out how we can use this information, use this information to its best possible purposes and of course to avoid any potential harmful outcomes so i would like to thank you for your attention this morning. i've a happy to address any questions. [applause] >> we have time for two or three questions. please come up to the microphones to the front and remember you will be immortalized on c-span. >> taking swabs and telling what your future medical problems are. how accurate are those predictions and is it worth the money? >> that is a great question.

the question is about so-called direct consumer testing where you send a saliva sample into a company. they type your dna using what we call a dna chip and you get back a lot of information about your approximate ancestry and about your risk for a number of disease conditions. it's important that the companies always refer to this as recreational genomics. that is the operative word. they don't claim that these results have sufficient accuracy certainly for biomedical application for diagnostic purposes but they give you, and i did send my saliva off to one of the companies and it was quite interesting to get the results back. the charge at that time was $400 i think some of them now or are down to $100.

so if you take it with a large grain of salt it's kind of fun but where i think it gets problematic is really with the diseases we are most interested in things like diabetes, heart disease, common cancers because they code you for risk information. the problem is we in the genetics community have been identified most of the janik causes of those diseases of people assent their dna into different come knees nissan gotten very different risk results just appending on which particular test those companies happen to use. i would take you with a grain of salt. it's kind of fun but it is ultimately recreational. >> sometimes in criminal cases there are accusations when you collect a sample from a suspect. that's the sample that somehow is then taken and claimed to be

the evidence sample. mike question is, is there a difference between -- are you going to find the difference between the evidence sample and the collected sample and if there really was too much similarity with that the suggestion that there actually has been some contamination of the collected sample with the suppose it evidence sample? >> the question was if you are comparing an evidentiary sample collected at a crime scene with the sample you have taken from a suspect, could there be suspicioususpiciou sly to greater resemblance between them such that that might suggest contamination back. >> yes. speak to the way what we see when we see if all 13 of those core scr's are successfully typed all 13 are going to match and that is not really a

surprise. i think what is really important here is a very accurate accounting of the chain of the whole sequence of collection events and there have been contamination issues sometimes due to lab errors, sometimes because of cross-contamination at the crime scene and there are several well-known cases in which the dna evidence turned out to be incorrect sometimes because of contamination sometimes because of misinterpretation of results. we think of that raid in general as very low but it has been known to happen. thank you. >> you will have another chance with a half-hour q&a with the entire panel. our next speaker shannon novak is on her way out. we are moving from genetics to anthropology at staying in the area of france six.

shannon will talk about her area of great expertise, what we can learn from loans and other remains. as soon as we find the right powerpoint. excellent. >> thank you to the organizers for inviting me to speak to you today. i ain't i am the anthropology of this section. everyone else is talking about dna. but i'm delighted to be here and what i want to do is use the wonderful set up that lynn jorde gave us of the genome and the genotype, that amazing simple code in our day that manifests in such interesting ways. let's move out in scale to actual lattes, putting those

genes into bodies and the interface between the gene, the genotype and phenotype, what we actually see, how they asked us themselves and say interface with the environment, as they interface with an individual's behavior and with historical changes over time. so, professors jorde talked about we have a gene that we can predict, hair color or eye colot understand about those genes and how they come to express themselves. this takes us into the domain of anthropology. and trying to put those genes into bodies, into bodies that have a long evolutionary history and looking at them across space

and through time. so again, anthropology, this wonderful discipline that allows us to not only consider cultural behaviors but the physical environment and the physical body itself and how that has changed over time and across space. not the core of anthropology is one of comparison and looking at very asian, again across time and space. what you will see we will move from different geographies, people's bodies in different places but also through deep time to look at those changes that have taken place. i'm sorry. to be able to move deep time, we

are taught in maybe two, three, 6 million years ago we can study those soft tissues and those bodies we see around us although the genome is helping us understand deep time, so what we do is we turn to the skeleton and human remains. many of us that are biological anthropologists study human remains. the hard tissue that is left over and there are a friday of different subdisciplines so paleoanthropology or paleontology are looking at deep time. they're looking at little bits of loan and what it can tell us about our esteemed ancestors, again what they ate and how they interact with their environment but also their evolutionary relationships between each other. the more recent work on skeletal remains, the more recent history is usually dealing with

anatomical moderns of archaeology and this is what i trained him in. i was particularly interested in a small group called the fremont that lived in the great basin about a thousand years ago and i was interested in these peoples that lived around the margins of this complex society and what it was like to live in that country side and be interactions in particular between groups and within households so i was particularly interested in gender relations and collect this violence between groups. physical anthropology and dealing with soft tissue and living people and looking at just how our modern environment and how that is affecting growth, the changes in the phenotype but still interested

in the underlying skeleton and the folks that live -- work with living peoples have been called into forensic work more recently particularly as you look at age of individuals and may be involved in immigration and deportation issues. that phenotype is interesting and we are here today for forensics. this is a new little category on this chart. i've been using this lovely chart to teach for years and years and forensics has been added to the chart. in part it has been due in part to the popular culture, obviously loans and all the crime shows that have been on television but also current if ants and hearing about mass graves and the analysis of these remains that are coming from mass conflict have started to make their way into the public

reception of the kind of work we do behind the scenes. so what is forensic anthropology you probably get a different definition from all forensic anthropologist because they haven't quite decided on what they are yet. it's a new subdisciplines within physical anthropology and they are trying to carve out a niche for themselves. folks that specialized in just dealing with medical and legal issues in contemporary events. so the folks at jpac and so are individuals that are worked in hawaii on the recovery of servicemen and their remains deploy a large number of anthropologist. the fbi employs a few and most anthropologists are employed by medical examiners and there are are few and far between. the students are racing in

trying to get these jobs and really there aren't that many. a couple of few if you want to look more and how they are trying to define what forensic anthropology should be, the atsf forensic anthropology trying to come up with standards for the data that is collected. ..

>> creating biological profiles from those remains and especially that we can be of some use to the medical examiner's. so now the fun part, we get to look at bones. so the remains of we often work with, we are again working with complete skeletons that time, whether we are forensic specialists were applied forensics folks, maintaining control of evidentiary traces, whatever they may be. and we are also very skilled and looking like very fragmentary remains and a few fragments of

bone here or there or severely damaged and altered remains and here you see a severely burned individual. and they are just bits and fragments there. and again, whether this is something from an archaeological side or the friends that context, we use many of the same difference different skills. more and more, we are being drawn into severely decomposed remains were damaged or means from mass disasters. this is from former yugoslavia, which i talk about my work over there, i talked about it a little bit today. showing you how things that we have learned in the archaeological context are applicable to more recent mass killings and disasters. so okay. whether we are specialists order

dealing with the application of forensic techniques, we start by building a biological profile of the individual, where there is a wonderful complete skeleton with the fragmentary or mostly decomposed and trying to understand that individual is. so we create something where we create a biological profile, where be talk about big categories of individuals, is it bone, is a human. and that may seem a bit silly, but 30% of our work is estimated to be -- it's not even bone, because rocks come in a lot and bear claws look like human hands, they come and always after hunting season. so much of our work is to say, no, you do not have to worry about this. so how many are there? again, with comingling and

trying to remove evidence of a body or multiple bodies, sorting out how many folks are in their, it is something that we are used to doing in very small fragments. sex age, ancestry of the individual. this can all affect it. and this is helping us these days immensely, that is if we can get the d.a. in may at of the collagen or the bottom it's not too degraded or if we are allowed to take samples, working on the native american repatriation act, some don't want samples taken from the remains. so if we can, it's wonderful and we have this great working relationship that helps us. so now we have put these into the broad demographic categories, we try to pull them out and individualize them. what is unique about their lives, what tells us something

about them. disease and activity markers, this is something that you can see, it has some extensive dental work, we work with forensic dentists all the time. it may tell us a bit about the kind of foods that they were eating and the quality of dental care that they have and we can see that there is an exit wound above his left eye with a large radiating rapture and this will tell us a bit about how he met his demise. i have seen them and this includes the mythology. if we are working in contemporary events, ideally, a

positive identification and once again, this is where the dna really allows for a positive identity and a named person to be found. in the prehistoric context, we don't have those names. so i want to turn to for the remainder of the talk is the area of, i think biological anthropologists have a lot to contribute to the local legal system. certainly the reason that i have been pulled in two cases is because my interest started once again what looking at violence in the past, warfare in the past, as well as gender conflicts that left its marks on the bone and there is a long history of studying, in anthropology and we have been

interested in human ancestors when they started to use stone tools and caught me off the bones and started to break the bones open and actually doing experimental work, looking at these small marks on fragments, and there is something that there's a long history of anthropology and helio anthropology and also how far back this collective violence go in warfare and can we really see the conflict between individuals and groups and how does it change when we get different settlement patterns. and this is a finely honed skill that has great application. and so the understanding of trauma is based upon this, about how the bone will fracture.

this wonderful composite material, it is both rigid and flexible, made of materials that allow a great deal of flexibility and at certain points it fails. so we do understand the tension and compression, and the pounds, the amount of pounds per spare inch, and this is what we use to understand the fragmentary nature of what we are seeing in the bone. the other questions we ask about this is the timing of the event. and i'm not going to talk about anti-modem. but it's interesting because these are the wounds have healed and these are part of a biological profile and it helps us if we have an individual or in the case of this individual, she has this line right here with a broken nose, and you can

see how smooth the bone is in the area. she survived whatever it was a broken nose and is one of our prehistoric females that i was interested in engender violence. the perry modem, that occurred to this, so there was no chance for healing to take place, and then post one of vents and how do we distinguish between what was perry boredom, and carnivores and insects and etc. we then also can start to distinguish the types and classes of weapon, was a sharp force weapon, a blunt force weapon or a projectile type of weapon. and how quickly wasn't coming in. and so again, these elastic properties, the faster a weapon comes in, it allows it to

recover enough isn't it fails just like it would with glass. so these are fairly predictable. but the the problem comes in when we are looking at extrinsic properties of the bone and are we looking at around sphere, such as the head, or a flat phone, such as ahead. those have different biomechanical properties in the physics to change. the underlying structure, the age of the individual. it is going to fracture in a way very different than say a toddler that has lots of collagen in their bones and the effects of the individual and the bone density and the health, of course, it alters that underlying bone structure. and covering and protections, even the amount of hair on the head has been shown to influence how that can penetrate an

altered the bone and of course, being humans, learning to protect ourselves can alter how we can predict. so when i was first hired to give this talk and i had 25 minutes and the judge had erred this in a variety of forms, as i'm going to get rid of all my historic cases and the judge said oh, no, but i loved it. george matheson of my historic cases. so why thought about it, it illustrates really nicely how we hone our skills in working in cases that are historic in context and how we bring those into a medical legal case and in many ways, what we learn from

those in the forensic context actually help us to go back to the prehistoric cases and understand, and interpret what we are seeing better. so it's a wonderful process and ability to both of these worlds and we are learning in those contacts. and so the battle accountant, illustrating a couple cases of violence interpretation and this is a very nice want to be able to illustrate to you with what, looks like before we take it to a more recent setting. from 1451, it was supposed to have been one of the bloodiest battles on english soil. it was a battle of the wars of the roses, a long-running civil war that occurred on palm sunday and 1461 and purportedly 100,000

men were on the field and some 20,000 were killed. the numbers are probably exaggerated, but we do know that there were thousands of men killed that day. i was doing my dissertation work on domestic violence in england, the university i was working with at bradford got called in to excavate and folks that were expanding this unearthed this as they were excavating out. thirty-nine individuals that had extensive, and they were comingled and as you can see, sorting these individuals out was quite a challenge.

and we have a wonderful folks and you can see this on the side. of course, we always have to understand the social and historical context that we are dealing with. this is a medieval wounded man, you can see we have the, here, projectiles, and we knew that we could be looking for a variety of the, that this individual had. he had a sore that went through his left eye, through his nose, down into the mandible. and it has been a wonderful tool for us and being able to say that the type of blade that we can see is shown here. blunt force is more typical to

see. it is more nondescript. but he gives us these nice radiating fractures, because we know the biomechanics, and he gives us a bull's-eye and of its very localized, we get some nice shapes like these nice squares and doing when profiling, we are able to see that these were the top spikes from pole acts that were used probably as finishing blows and this individual had multiple injuries and the schools are in the top of the head. so not too many projectiles, but the square hole in the head is not so square if you look closely. it was a diamond shaped with a hole through the metal and that's what happened when this tip goes all the way through to the skirt.

notice the radiating fractures that expand on out. we can tell that i came in with more velocity because it was dissipated in those radiating fractures. there are more recent events that have influenced our work and how we are interpreting them from recent conflict. while i was working on this, i was part of a team with the smithsonian institution that went to do some human rights work in the former yugoslavia with the breakup into smaller units in the '90s. and we were asked to work in croatia because they had so many mass graves coming out. but the pathologist asked our health and training and to analyze these, both comingled and severely decomposed remains.

so nonetheless, dealing with the familiar features that we saw an comingled individuals. so working with them on how to excavate the grades and also had to deal with masses of comingled bodies and trying to get biological profiles from them. and you can see the lake and ahead and there are some arms and what we know now is that many grades were exchanged, which damaged the remains and i have been given one minute, so i'm going to finish up, just to

illustrate the trauma. we didn't see much, beyond the head. but we did see extensive, and the graves, which is not surprising. notice this in the leg, something coming through very quickly, shrapnel wounds, and when you put things back together again, you can actually find entrance wounds and exit wounds and trajectories that will help you identify at least what direction that was coming in through. but the heads were shattered and again, the force was much greater and the bone couldn't recover from the elastic properties and once again, reconstructing them. what we see our entrance and exit wounds and in this case, they wanted to know where these just explosions that had caused

the bodies to go into pieces, or are we actually seeing executions and in this case, what we have is an execution. as the base of the skull with a nice entrance wound right here. and the exit wound through the top of the head in this individual was down with his head bowed down and had been executed. the other thing we learned a lot about, which we have taken back to our ecological contacts is about postmortem events in my time is up, so i will finish on this. what can happen to bodies and being able to differentiate between what happened. everyone gets excited by these holes in the head, i these gunshot wounds or other kinds of

torture and what we learn is that the army was using probes and they didn't have penetrating radar to use at the time they were using this in very good at it to test the sensitivity of the soil and these guys would find them. but also creates damage on the bone. so in these contexts, being able to distinguish so it can tell us who those people were. what happened at the time of death in distinguishing between those and what may have been associated with capuchins or revocation of the grave, it is where forensic anthropologist have been most helpful. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> we have time for one or two more questions for shannon at this point.

please come forward to these microphones if you have any questions. >> i i know it was in the most optimistic presentation, but i am sure that there are a couple questions. >> thank you for that interesting presentation. i have had the opportunity to talk to a number of positions that treated the victims of the shooting in aurora, colorado, and they were very traumatized themselves by being exposed to what many of them have not seen before, which are the wounds caused beauties high-powered rifles. i wonder if you could just describe is what happens to the bones in our bodies as opposed to a more conventional strike. >> that's a very good question. and again, you know, we are used to saying that when you get these volunteer forces, even

when they're used to seeing it, it is horrific. but the bone becomes just like china. so the faster something goes through it, the more it shatter your going to have. and so i can only imagine what they saw and overwork, colorado. a lot of times you have indistinguishable parts and it's really explosive like you would see with high-power shrapnel. ideally, the soft tissue in things contain it. but these mass graves in yugoslavia where you have executions with high-power rifles and you'd have something that looked very much like the human body, but not really a head. and what you have is this pile of bits and bones. because much of them hadn't even made it. so i don't know if that answers your question. but these are very difficult

questions and the covering of the excavation is key. not reconstruction of every little piece that you can and you can put the parts back together again, and it does mean recovery and that is key. >> yes? >> i have worked on the montana burial repatriation act, and i'm wondering if you can discuss what need you have at your disposal to investigate these that are acceptable to american natives that are not part of the remains itself. >> thank you. that's a lovely question. i would have liked to have given an entire talk on this issue. that is a very contentious and

emotional law and i think that many of us who work closely with indigenous populations and different tribal organizations, we have found that we have gotten better at communicating with each other about the process. part of the problem is that the remains will be swept off and hidden behind closed doors and who knew what went on. and what we have found is that more interaction with the elders and tribal groups and actually bring them in to see what we are doing, i have worked in cases where they burned sage or those of us doing the analysis occur before and after being an anthropologist and i'm cool with that. it's great.

and again, the communication. coming from working in human rights cases as opposed to domestic cases, we can work -- we don't see the work that we do kind of behind the scenes. when we are on the ground, we are often interacting closely with families and relatives and i think that those of us that have done that are much more comfortable working with indigenous populations and different cultural practices and i think that the dna has been in the process more. and they understand how much a kid help them. but it's a matter of education and educating each other. >> thank you, everyone. >> that's a fascinating talk. i'm glad that we didn't schedule

her just before lunch. [laughter] >> we have had genetics and ecology and now we are moving to a deeper mystery, the supreme court. professor david kay is the leading expert and he's going to tell us what he thinks the supreme court has been doing with the dna. [applause] >> i would like to thank judge matheson and professor hank greely for allowing me to talk about something i'm still trying to figure out. as you don't have to believe everything i say. first, i need to find my slides.

okay, here we are. [inaudible conversations] okay, i'm going to talk this morning about two cases only, although i will refer to others, that were on the docket and decided by the u.s. supreme court. most recently in the month of june and in early earlier june. king is a case which arose when alonzo king was arrested for waving a shotgun at a number of

people. the police had booked him and took his fingerprints and they took his photograph and they took his dna in the form of two cheek swabs. a few months later, after it was determined after a database search, the doctor lynn jorde talked about, there was a rape case. king was charged and convicted of holding a gun to the head of the 53-year-old woman while he raped her and he appealed and the maryland court of appeals held that the state's law authorizing this, it was at least as applied in almost all

cases is unconstitutional under the fourth amendment. even before the supreme court could meet to discuss this, chief justice roberts issued this maryland judgment. and he wrote that there is a was a fair likelihood that the court would reverse. and so i went to the oral argument in the case. >> we will hear the argument next and pays 12207, maryland versus king. >> since 2009 when maryland began to collect the dna samples with violent crimes of burglary, there have been 225 matches, 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions, including that of the respondents. >> that is really good. i bet if you conduct a lot of

unreasonable searches and seizures due to get more convictions as well. that proves absolutely nothing. [laughter] >> immediately i knew that this was not going to be a unanimous court. [laughter] >> the court split by the narrowest of margins, meeting the chief justice predictions. justice kennedy wrote the majority of opinion when he announced it in court, justice scalia took the unusual step of reading. for 11 minutes, he excoriated his opinion and suggested that the opinion of the majority strains the credulous and that it reflected a lack of minimal competence in the use of the

english language and that it paved the way for a genetic panoptic con in which governments could peer into the dna of nearly all of us. so what did the court actually hold? the reason was indeed a surge that was not an issue in the case on the constitutionality turns on the balance of state and individual deference and it favors the release with the facts in this case. but what is remarkable about majority opinion and has led to this criticism that i have mentioned, it focused almost exclusively on the interests of the state in pretrial detainees, saying if someone would be

guilty of another crime, not to convict them of that crime, but to help make decisions like should they get bail or not in that narrow focus led one journalist to ask why does it seem that justice kennedy is the last person on earth to have seen law and order? [laughter] and two layers deep in the fourth amendment, the answer should be clear. for the past half-century or so, the court has reiterated, and i counted at least 17 cases. that the standard approach to the fourth amendment is a per se for certain kinds of searches and it makes it unreasonable by itself in the absence of a warrant or probable cause,

unless one of these exceptions applies. but there are a handful at most of three cases, as the court moves towards interests like i described. and the question became how to uphold if the court wanted to a uphold the maryland law. one could have applied the per se framework that found an exception. and it has been recognized so far as a special needs exception, the basic idea is that above and beyond the acquisition that were once

bouncing to get away from the rule because the framers were not really intending an absolute rule in these kind of situations where there are unusual set of interests. the problem were if the primary purpose of the program is really law enforcement, you could not use a special needs exception and i believe that there are ways around that where it could be used and indeed dna database some years ago. and i have left reprints of my articles in the back. please take them so i don't have to carry them on the plane. the other approach would be to create an exception for

biometric data, purely physical information, not looking into what someone is thinking, but only the kind of physical traits that a physical is apologist, for instance, might be interested in. and again, the court didn't do that. he could have bounced outside of the framework and it might have a botched this entirely, which is what are you'll professor has been urging for years, saying that there ought to be best in the court didn't do that either. and i think they tried to confine the approach to direct bouncing to a narrow class of cases and it was not very articulate about what that class of cases was.

and as for the balancing itself, as i mentioned, they emphasized the state's interest in pretrial processing and does for the individual interest on the other side, those that are said to be minor and it's a minimal intrusion and the impact on informational privacy was small, given statutory safeguards. so i'd like to spend a moment on what was being referred to. it has to do with the idea that this is law enforcement, since the first days of dna testing that doctor lynn jorde referred to, what is used to make investigative determinations are not encoded, nonthreatening, non-relevant to anything else. not everyone believes him and not every judge believes them. and here is a short segment of

the oral argument that is still dragging on and this is the argument before the decision was announced. >> it's a much more severe intrusion. >> absolutely. and this includes the whole history of your ancestors and the weaknesses and now we know the so-called junk dna is very important. >> that's absolutely right. >> we know that reading "the new york times." >> as much as we love "the new york times", that's not part of the record. [laughter] >> we could take a judicial notice of a. [laughter] >> only if you are a subscriber. [laughter] >> i read many newspapers. >> so what he was referring to,

headlines were reporting that a recent research known as the ann project, a successor to the human genome project found that 80% was functional in the headlines appeared that the junk dna was dethroned. and there was immediate criticism of the times and other papers for their reporting. >> welcome to a special edition of this broadcast. we have a special guest here today who is a professor of medicine and he is a big headliner and it is at best misleading. and i have trouble with this. so i feel the need to say this,

they know it's not true and they shouldn't say it. and so you should never do that. >> okay, so he says that you don't distort the science to get into the headlines and if you want to follow more of that issue, i would recommend and i will make this brief -- and i recommend it because i was involved in it. in which we recruited a number of distinguished scientists and we could have used more. and attempted to simply explain what the relevant issues were and we suggested it wasn't the right inquiry, not a good scientific term, but the court used it nonetheless. so anyway it is an interesting

brief and easily obtained. the idea is that it was not terribly revealing of much more than identity. and statutorily, i'm going to skip over more of the argument in which you hear the judge argue that he doesn't really care that there's a statute that would make this a private use of dna because statutes can be changed. well, the supreme court clearly rejected that view and saying what once the statutes are in place, we will give a presumption. so what is left after this? well, one issue is the balancing. does it work the same in cases that are not serious offensives? police four times you see the phrase serious offense never

defined. if it is really vital to the balancing, the federal law is unconstitutional because it requires dna to be taken regardless as long as there is a detention and you are dna is mostly taken under federal law. so how about the uniform application and that is something that they stressed? and the idea that this was a permissible and reasonable kind of solution. is it not uniform because they want to get dna sample? even if they do have probable cause? >> what they want to go after smaller matters and build up the database and can they do so by changing the way that the dna is conducted? in theory at least, sometimes in practice, it can be found even

by doing more by just having a sticky pad instead of swapping the cheek, which goes to be the point of concern for justice scalia, as he wrote the opinion, saying that the proud founders of our constitution and the fathers of our country would not have welcomed a royal cheek swab. well, what if he argued this other than the current ones? would've sequencing was used with the courts going down. i have a colleague in the next one at penn state was doing that for frantic users. and what about directing this to other members of the family, which can be done in is strongly favored in denver by the district attorney there. is that a different balance of

interest? what if the profiling is done before and arraignment? and what if they want to retain it even if they are not convicted, it's currently not belong in the united states, but that is how they built up the database the point where one official described it as criminally active as a person and the british population. so there is a lot of work left for the lower courts and good luck to you. in the second case. jumping out to a provision in the constitution. [inaudible conversations] >> justice at the opinion of the court in two cases this morning and the first case is williams

versus illinois number 10 -- 85, 05. this involves the dna evidence and the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. the petitioner is cindy williams who was convicted in state court in illinois for objecting and raping a young woman and at his trial williams was identified as the attacker but also attempted to show that williams dna matching forensic sample obtained from the victim at the hospital after the rape occurred. he objected to the testing by the expert who testified for the state and after the petitioner was convicted, he filed an appeal, claiming that the dna expert testimony violated the competition laws in the state court of appeals rejected this argument in the supreme court of illinois affirmed it. until anyone interested in understanding this will have to read our opinions.

and i filed an opinion in which justice kennedy and justice breyer joined. justice breyer has filed this concurring in the judgment and justice elena kagan has filed a second opinion in which justice scalia and justice sotomayor were had joined its. >> noticed the same lineup. but even a more fractured court and justice alito refuses to explain the basis of the court opinion and i'm supposed to do that in seven minutes? well, six minutes. [laughter] >> why doesn't he give the holding? because there is no holding. if you read the opinions, the majority of the court rejects every theory and the confrontation clause itself talks about the right to be

confronted with the witnesses against the individual and the court has struggled with the application as defined saying that everything turns on whether or not the statement is testimonial. the court has struggled with that concept now in three different cases within a space of four years, all of which appeared at the very end of the term, reflecting the court struggles. and we know from the first case the laboratory cannot simply produce this that says that can be introduced with evidence in a criminal case for the prosecution. but even that, that without a witness to support that result, even that led to a dissent by

four judges who said that what the court was doing was in fact not apply normal confrontation principles to the laboratory work because they are different than ordinary witnesses and what i will call science exceptionalism. the second case the justice ginsburg wrote an opinion, in which the state of new mexico, used as a witness for a dui blood-alcohol measurement, someone from another laboratory who had not been involved in the testing at all, the person who did it was on administrative leave for unspecified reasons and only one justice joined in the entirety of the court and that that was justice scalia. justice sotomayor were wrote a concurrence that is the limits of the opinion, one being that

the report as to which there was no live witness for was never in evidence. the army's question becomes what if it is not introduced into evidence, and that is the williams case. and shipping this up to a firm in maryland, the firm deduced this profile, which is not always a trivial matter, by the way, and often requires judgment, mixed samples are producing real samples and forensics today, especially with low quantities of dna. writing a report, sending it back to the state, and in analyst from illinois searched the illinois database and she

also used this to come up with a probability even lower than the ones then we heard in the one of quad chileans for the related person having the same. you're the state did not attempt to introduce the report and they called the illinois analyst to describe the database and the prosecutor at trial said that there is no confrontation problem because i am not getting what the other day. but if you read the transcript, the prosecutor referred to the male dna profile found, which that analysts had no direct involvement in. so that is the confrontation issue and the court, as i said, split in many ways on this and i

will quickly go through the main theories. one of the reprints written with my co-author that discusses this topic and really analyzes these points more carefully and one of the justices priorities of the opinion, it is not a confrontation issue because laboratory wasn't being an accuser. in five justices asked where that came from and adjusts as a witness in the sixth amendment. another theory that gets complex and you have to be a lover of hearsay involves truth of the matter asserted and even justice alito's group said that it's not theirs, but it's just too

illuminate the testimony about the match and justice elena kagan callbacks your fiction and nonsense and factually impossible, taken from us and i will end with that because i don't want to miss the schedule. but just mentioning that upon reading this opinion, we have modified our view, he had an interesting point. there are cases in which the rule might work to get around the confrontation clause,.

>> most important, the right to be confronted, and a right that my client has been denied. >> that is ridiculous. we produced the witnesses and to cross-examine him. >> all but one, the most devastating witness against my client is not a human being, but a machine, the information system. and i ask the court to return after being before us.

[inaudible conversations] >> i'm done. [applause] [applause] >> okay, we have time for questions. david talked about the opinion going back to professor novak. a sharp instrument roy blunt instrument? [applause] >> questions? >> other than rhetorical questions. [laughter] okay, i can tell that after this question session is done, you have a break, which is probably why there are no questions. you're on break and accurate 10:30 a.m. we start up again in about 13 minutes or so and we will see you here at 10:30 a.m.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right, it's time to get started with part two. please take your seats, take anyone's seat. [laughter] >> all right. i declared the presence in our next speaker is going to move from the supreme court to the

brain and we hope that there is a correlation there. including the behavioral genomics and about what science can tell us about human behavior in ways that may be relevant and we have a professor of law at duke. and we now welcome nita farahany. [applause] >> thank you. this is on? okay. it is a pleasure and honor to be here with you today and you have an opportunity to talk with you about how behavioral sciences are impacting the legal system. this morning you heard about the extraordinary role of dna and the analysis that phones are playing in identifying individuals, and individually

identifying criminals in order to solve the crimes. i'm going to shift our focus a little bit to talk about which no mix and behavioral sciences tell us about why a person has committed a crime. and whether or not an improved understanding of why people commit crimes in the consummate contributions should impact how we think about responsibility for criminal conduct and the punishment for criminal conduct. and so of all of the risk factors that are most notable for the developments of antisocial personality disorder that have economic basis, does anyone know what the most predictive genomic future is? any guesses? >> yes, being a male. i'm a little bit biased, but i think that men are at a

significant biological disadvantage to women. and it turns out that this might be part of the explanation as to why. what you're looking at is a gene that happens to appear on the x-chromosome and it turns out that it's a lot of the essential gene and why is that? and produces an enzyme and it is essential as an enzyme for the regulation a lot of neurotransmitters in your brain and those include things like serotonin and things that are essential to our happiness, disposition, impulse control, and it turns out that men are not only at a significant disadvantage because they are men, but also because it is more likely to appear in the low

producing form as well. and there's a variation of it, which regulates how much is expressed in the body and because it is linked this way, men have a lower amount produced, which may help explain the differences and the increase in criminality. and it's a theory that has interesting support. so some researchers published a remarkable study in 2002 and the study showed the first of its kind of gene interaction and you have heard the idea that it is in all nature but some nurture. but the combination of interaction between the two had never been shown before this study, which conclusively showed

that there is in fact an actual interaction. to what you're looking at is two different minds than what you see right here is gray and the black is low and what we are looking at is antisocial personalities. any soothers on huge amount of difference between the low activity in the high activity, although there is a little bit of difference between the two. and then you see that there's a big difference over here. so what is that big difference? well, it turns out that if you take and look at a cohort of individuals and you look at boys over a 20 year timeframe, looking at their social history in determining whether or not they have been subject to sexual abuse or physical abuse in childhood and the presence or absence of this. what they found was if you have

the low activity monitoring this and also have severe childhood mistreatment, there is a significant, four times greater possibility and likelihood, you would be in antisocial adult. how do they define on? well, they looked at the likelihood of committing violent offenses or property offenses and that is remarkable and interesting. which is we can actually see that there is a genetic and environmental specific contribution to a particular personality type. it turns out that even if you don't have the childhood maltreatment, there is still a difference. so what this book that was in gang members, the use use of weapons. and what you're looking at on the left is activity on the right and you are looking at this white